The Technodrome Forums - CNN getting sued for 250 million

The Technodrome Forums (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/index.php)

- Current Events (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/forumdisplay.php?f=25)

- - CNN getting sued for 250 million (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showthread.php?t=61183)

CNN getting sued for 250 million

For the attacks on that Covington kid a few weeks back. The Washington Post is also getting similarly sued:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/cnn-to-be...student-lawyer

And the lawyer gets 45%....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jester (Post 1798092)

And the lawyer gets 45%....

That's still a lot of money for his client to keep. Who wouldn't like 100 million?

This kid again...? Any longer and it'll start seeming like he's suing to keep his 15 min of fame rolling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndigoErth (Post 1798107)

This kid again...? Any longer and it'll start seeming like he's suing to keep his 15 min of fame rolling.

To be completely fair, his family did say several weeks ago that they were likely to sue, as I recall, and these things don't happen overnight. So it's not their fault that it's just going through - and being reported on - right now. That's not something they're in control of.

It's also a pretty good thing, because the problem of "journalists" creating a story before getting all the Facts, and then immediately "explaining" to everyone how they're supposed to feel about it - and further, often refusing to amend their reports once those Facts are in, if they contradict what's already been said - isn't a new problem and it didn't start with this kid's story. It's not exclusive to either side of the political spectrum but it's firmly entrenched with the rise of the internet as a "news" source.

Newspapers have to cite sources and print apologies/retractions. That's the law. TV and internet "news" sources don't have the same restrictions, and in the age of the 24/7 News Cycle, it's become the standard operating procedure to give every rumor, whisper, and overheard bit of gossip its own headline and Op-Ed before anything's even been verified, and if they're wrong, they just shrug and go "Oh Well". They're not even required to say, "We Were Wrong." But they should be.

Just like the Smollet case, we have here a situation where it SEEMED like one thing happened, an entire narrative emerged based on what a few people SUPPOSED was the truth, and a lot of people got extremely entrenched in what their version of Right vs. Wrong was. And in the end, it turned out that the truth was altogether completely different than what had been presupposed. But the damage was already done by then.

It really can't be this way. People need to be held accountable.

What we now simply shrug and unquestioningly accept as "The News" actually has an altogether different name, and has for over 150 years:

yel·low jour·nal·ism
noun
Journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration.
(Google definition)

https://history.state.gov/milestones...low-journalism

"Yellow journalism was a style of newspaper reporting that emphasized sensationalism over facts..."

It's absolutely the kind of thing people can, have, and should sue over, and it's also WHY newspapers have to cite sources and print retractions. Simply put, we used to have standards, and now, because of the internet, we don't.

It's not too late to start bringing accountability back. 15 minutes or 15 hours of fame, or infamy, it really doesn't matter so long as something good can come of it, that being a return of ethics in journalism and the end of clickbait, fear-mongering and flat-out lies.

Really if we must keep hearing about it in the news I'd rather hear about this kid and the old guy getting together and having a nice conversation, and spare us news on who is suing for money. (Because news of suing for a ton of money rarely does someone's reputation any good either. :tconfuse:) Would also love to hear of the old guy being able to visit the school and give a talk, tell stories, sing with his drum, or whatever it is he is used to doing working with youth as he supposedly does. Just something positive instead to patch it up rather than news just being about the money.

Andrew, you should really put "State Media" in the title so people know that you're using far right sources to defend racists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voltron (Post 1798136)

Andrew, you should really put "State Media" in the title so people know that you're using far right sources to defend racists.

Which racists?

The boy who was just standing there or fake "war veteran" who wanted to provoke him?

And why Fox is "far right"? What is not "far right" in your understanding?

Yeah, I'm not understanding what racists he's referring to. Wanting a thing to be so really, really badly does not make it so.

Of course they're suing, it's the American way :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voltron (Post 1798136)

Andrew, you should really put "State Media" in the title so people know that you're using far right sources to defend racists.

The kids weren't being racist and that was proven multiple times over. Sounds like you're upset they cant run with the narrative that a native american was disrespected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656 (Post 1798116)

It's also a pretty good thing, because the problem of "journalists" creating a story before getting all the Facts, and then immediately "explaining" to everyone how they're supposed to feel about it - and further, often refusing to amend their reports once those Facts are in, if they contradict what's already been said - isn't a new problem and it didn't start with this kid's story. It's not exclusive to either side of the political spectrum but it's firmly entrenched with the rise of the internet as a "news" source.

yep. it's about time someone went after one of these 'news' sources for fake news. there is consequences to fake stories...or should be.

Well it's not as if CNN hasn't been brought to court about their "fake news" before:

Quote:

Those who accuse CNN and other mainstream media outlets of “fake news” will probably revel in a recent decision by a federal judge in Atlanta, Georgia. While Judge Orinda Evans didn’t all out declare that CNN was peddling in falsehoods, she did take aim at the network in an initial judgment in favor of a former hospital CEO who sued CNN accusing them of purposely skewing statistics to reflect poorly on a West Palm Beach hospital. Judge Evans didn’t mince words in her 18-page order allowing the case to move forward, and dismissing CNN’s attempt to get it thrown out of court.

Davide Carbone, former CEO of St. Mary’s Medical Center in West Palm Beach, filed a defamation lawsuit against CNN after they aired what he claims were a “series of false and defamatory news reports” regarding the infant mortality rate at the hospital. CNN’s report said the mortality rate was three times the national average. However, Mr. Carbone contends that CNN “intentionally” manipulated statistics to bolster their report. He also claims that CNN purposely ignored information that would look favorable to the hospital in order to sensationalize the story.

“In our case, we contended that CNN essentially made up its own standard in order to conduct an ‘apples to oranges’ comparison to support its false assertion that St. Mary’s mortality rate was 3 times higher than the national average. Accordingly, the case against CNN certainly fits the description of media-created ‘Fake News.'” said Carbone’s attorney L. Lin Wood, in a statement to LawNewz.com.

Wood says that as a result of CNN’s story Carbone lost his job and it became extremely difficult for him to find new employment in the field of hospital administration.

“False and defamatory accusations against real people have serious consequences. Neither St. Mary’s or Mr. Carbone did anything to deserve being the objects of the heinous accusation that they harmed or put babies and young children at risk for profit,” Wood said.

On Wednesday, Federal District Judge Orinda Evans ruled that the case could move forward, even ruling that she found that CNN may have acted with “actual malice” with the report — a standard necessary to prove a defamation claim.

“The Court finds these allegations sufficient to establish that CNN was acting recklessly with regard to the accuracy of its report, i.e., with ‘actual malice,” the order reads. CNN had tried to get the case dismissed.

We’ve reach out to CNN for comment, and will update this story accordingly.

https://lawandcrime.com/uncategorize...lse-reporting/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sumac (Post 1798155)

Which racists?

The boy who was just standing there or fake "war veteran" who wanted to provoke him?

And why Fox is "far right"? What is not "far right" in your understanding?

...Anything right of center is considered "far right" now in today's political culture.
https://i.redd.it/492dx16as2l21.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jester (Post 1798092)

And the lawyer gets 45%....

Is it really that high??? From my experience they take 33%. At least that's how much they took from me with my case :ohwell: better than nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voltron (Post 1798136)

Andrew, you should really put "State Media" in the title so people know that you're using far right sources to defend racists.

Please don't start. I feel like you are literally pulling the pin in a live grenade :lol: with condescending comments like this :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redeemer (Post 1799440)

Please don't start. I feel like you are literally pulling the pin in a live grenade :lol: with condescending comments like this :lol:

This guy already called Andrew "fascist" because he asked question in another thread. I don't think he cares that much about being inflammatory. :lol:

However, his trolling tactics need a lot of work.

If you wish, we can return to the no politics policy. But so long as you're backing a news group that is currently being barred from a country for inciting massacres, I stand by my statement.